New design cuts risk for cars in crashes with SUVs, pickups

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that lower bumpers on SUVs and pickup trucks in the past few years has helped reduce the risk of injury to people in cars that crash with the larger, heavier vehicles.

In addition to the basic laws of physics (which always apply, of course), part of the problem prior to the design tweaks was that the larger vehicles impacted the smaller at a higher position, such that the SUVs often would "ride over" the cars' hood or trunk areas, taking an easier path to the passenger compartments.

Putting the different types of vehicle on more equal footing, height-wise, allows impact-absorbing car bumpers, steel-beam door panels and other safety devices to perform more effectively, according to the Institute's evaluation of crash-related injury data. Most of the SUV and pickup models incorporating the lower bumpers were introduced between 2004 and 2007.

Here's today's news release from the group.

News Release | September 28, 2011

Effort to make SUVs, pickups less deadly to car occupants in crashes is paying off

ARLINGTON, VA — Today's SUVs and pickups pose far less risk to people in cars and minivans than previous generations, a new study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety shows.

Until recently, SUVs and pickups were more likely than cars or minivans of the same weight to be involved in crashes that killed occupants of other cars or minivans. That's no longer the case for SUVs, and for pickups the higher risk is much less pronounced than it had been.

For example, among 1-4-year-old vehicles weighing 3,000-3,499 pounds, SUVs were involved in crashes that killed car/minivan occupants at a rate of 44 deaths per million registered vehicle years in 2000-01. That rate dropped by nearly two-thirds to 16 in 2008-09. In comparison, cars and minivans in the same weight category were involved in the deaths of other car/minivan occupants at a slightly higher rate of 17 per million in 2008-09.

The researchers attribute much of the change to two things: improved crash protection in the cars and minivans, thanks to side airbags and stronger structures, and newer designs of SUVs and pickups that align their front-end energy-absorbing structures with those of cars.

Lifesaving cooperation: The more compatible designs are the result of efforts by automakers, the government, and the Institute to address the problem of mismatched vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration asked automakers to address the compatibility issue amid concern about the changing vehicle mix on U.S. roads. In response, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association of Global Automakers, and the Institute led a series of meetings in 2003 to come up with solutions. Participating automakers included BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota, and Volkswagen.

The companies agreed to build the front ends of SUVs and pickups so that their energy-absorbing structures would line up better with those of cars, reducing the likelihood that an SUV or pickup would override a car in a collision. Better alignment allows both vehicles' front ends to manage the crash energy, helping to keep it away from the occupant compartments.

The automakers also pledged to strengthen head protection in all vehicles in order to improve outcomes when an SUV or pickup strikes another vehicle in the side. They accomplished this by installing more head-protecting side airbags.

"By working together, the automakers got life-saving changes done quickly," says Joe Nolan, the Institute's chief administrative officer and a co-author of the new study. "The new designs have made a big difference on the road."

The deadline for implementing the compatibility changes was September 2009, but many of the 2004-08 models in the study already complied. Among 2004 models, 54 percent of SUVs and pickups met the front-end requirements, and among 2007 models, 81 percent did.

How the study was done: Institute researchers looked at 1-4-year-old SUVs, pickups, and cars/minivans in 2000-01 and 2008-09 and compared the number of car and minivan occupants killed in 2-vehicle crashes with those models per million registered vehicle years. (A registered vehicle year is 1 vehicle registered for 1 year, 2 for 6 months, etc.) The cars or minivans in which people were killed, known as crash partner vehicles, could be of any age, size, and weight. Data on crash deaths came from the federal Fatality Analysis Reporting System, and registration information came from R.L. Polk & Co.

In both 2000-01 and 2008-09, the number of crash partner deaths generally went up as vehicle weight increased. This isn't surprising since vehicle weight is a key factor in the outcome of crashes. However, in the first period, SUVs were more deadly to people in other vehicles than cars of the same weight, and pickups were more deadly than SUVs.

Between 2000-01 and 2008-09, the rate of crash partner deaths declined for all weight categories of all 3 types of vehicles, except the relatively small group of cars and minivans weighing 4,500-4,999 pounds. Improvements in occupant protection in the crash partner cars and minivans helped lower the number of deaths. The spread of ESC, as well as changes in travel patterns due to the sluggish economy and high gas prices, likely also contributed to this decline.

Crash partner death rates for pickups, SUVs, and cars/minivans in 2008-09 weren't as far apart as they were in 2000-01. Among 1-4-year-old vehicles in a given weight category, an SUV usually posed no more risk to people in a car or minivan than another car or minivan. Pickups still fatally injured people in cars and minivans at a higher rate, particularly in frontal crashes.

"Pickups lagged behind other vehicles in getting ESC, and designs of some top-selling models were slow to change. Those facts help explain why the numbers didn't improve as much for pickups as for SUVs," Nolan says. "Also, pickups often carry loads, so the trucks in these crashes could be a good deal heavier than their curb weights."

The results don't contradict the basic physics of crashes. Size and weight are still key, and a small, lightweight vehicle is going to fare worse than a big, heavy vehicle in a crash. In general, SUVs and pickups are heavier than cars, so in that sense different types of vehicles always will be mismatched. But the study shows that, beyond weight, differences in vehicle styles don't have to be a safety problem.

Safer SUVs: The study of car/minivan crash partner deaths is the latest piece of Institute research showing that SUVs aren't the safety concern they once were. Recently calculated driver death rates for 2005-08 models show that drivers of SUVs are among the least likely to die in a crash. That change is due largely to ESC.

"Whether you're in an SUV or just sharing the road with one," Nolan says, "recent improvements to these vehicles are making you safer."

First of all I enjoy trees as much as most people, however there are times when they need to be trimmed for their own heath and for safety reasons. I would like give a different view about PennDOT's recent tree-removal on Route 378 north of Route 309.

I am a retired fire police officer, and in the past have been dispatched for downed trees and power lines many times at 2 a.m. during a rain or snow storms to block off Route 378 and re-route traffic. We have to wait for Penn Dot and/or PPL to do their job before we can open the route.To me 378 is an emergency route to the hospitals in Bethlehem, so the PennDOT's action eliminates further possible delays for ambulance crews.

Now when I drive Route 378, the sky is blue and you can see the distant hills. My only suggestion is to move the Star of Bethlehem a little to the left so you can see it all the way to Route 309!

There is a large tree hanging over the road on Basin Street in Allentown, just beyond the Front Street Bridge, such that I will not go under this tree for fear of it falling on me, and that will be the end of me forever!

Would temporary traffic signals solve problem of Route 309 bridges?

A number of people wrote in response to today's column on motorists ignoring the northbound-only traffic restriction on Route 309 in Heidelberg and North Whitehall townships, suggesting that temporary traffic signals at each bridge would safely accomodate two-way traffic on this busy road.

I neglected to include this detail in the column, but PennDOT engineers considered that solution, ruling it out basically because they felt the traffic volume would cause undue tie-ups and long queues at both bridges, particularly during rush-hours and other heavy periods.

"With so many cars in both directions, [traffic] would have backed up," said PennDOT spokesman Sean Brown. This would cause a particular problem at the Heidelberg bridge, which is very close to the Route 100 intersection, he said. Engineers envisioned chronic southbound queues extending from the temporary signal back to and beyond the permanet signal at 100. This would result in adjacent signals working against one another, so to speak, much of the time.

I'm not sure they're right, but I have no basis on which to dispute their conclusion; I have to defer to their expertise in this case.

One other thing I failed to meniton, and that Brown thought was important: PennDOT has agreed to some unspecified overtime costs to allow the contractor to get the work done as soon as possible, he said. The contract says the work must be done by May, but officials are pushing for completion, at least to the point that both lanes would be open and two-way travel restored, by the end of this year.

Thanks to all who submitted this well-reasoned solution. Below are some of the comments.

I've also included comments from Blaine and Mary Beth Dellecker that illustrate the frustrations of living near one of the restricted bridges, and having to go far out of the way as part of their daily routines.

Re your column today: I haven't followed the Rt. 309/Rt. 100 bridge issue closely, so if this comment is redundant, please ignore it. But it seems to me that the issue of vehicles going the wrong way (south) on a clearly-marked one-way (north) road being repaired should have been resolved by PennDOT (and possibly suggested in your column) by the installation of alternating traffic signals at both ends of the construction zone, even if's a 3-mile-long zone. This was done, for example, on Rt. 611 south of Easton where a bridge is being replaced, and the wait for a green light is no more than a few minutes. That way traffic in both directions can use the one open lane simply by taking well-regulated turns when the light is green. Was this considered for the Rt. 309/Rt. 100 construction zone?

You have a good column!

Paul Schlueter

-----------------------------------

Dear Road Warrior,

In New York State, when faced with the one way problems you describe in your September 23rd column, they use temporary traffic lights to allow two way traffic, one side at a time. Is this ever done here in PA? I know they cost money, but wouldn't it be worth it?

Judith Megerle

----------------------------------

Regarding your column on the road closure of 309 S – why can’t the state put up a temporary signal – I’ve seen this done in Schuylkill County on Route 895 a few years ago and in Berks County on Rt 73 (Currently in place while they repair walkway on the bridge). If the concern is because of it being too close to the light at 100 & 309 – can’t they sync the signals??? Between this detour and the never ending construction (they need to get that project done already too!!) on 100 S near Tilghman – morning commutes are brutal!!!!

Lisa K. Paul

-----------------------------------

I too was the victim of wrong way traffic at the 309/100 bridge closing! It is a tremendous inconvenience to go the "recommended" detour (18 miles to Schnecksville via the detour as opposed to 5.5 via 309 or about 23.5 miles to get to the other side of the bridge the recommended way). Granted we locals know the back roads to circumvent the detour and I understand that the back roads are not meant to handle the heavy truck traffic.

It does prompt in me the question, though: What about temporary signals? In the past I've experienced where one lane closures had signals at both ends, timed to let traffic through one way at a time. I know I'd rather have to wait 5 minutes for my turn at a light rather than drive 20 miles out of my way. Maybe they don't do that any more for safety reasons or whatever, but with a project slated to keep the road closed until May (officially) or December (contractor's projection), it seems something could have been done differently.

The route 100 Macungie projects are not nearly as disruptive as the 309 ones. I work in Alburtis and traffic is usually moving at a reasonable pace on that detour.

Richard Gilson

P.S. They finally got a tractor-trailer restriction sign on southbound Rt. 863 in New Smithville!

----------------------------------

I HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR THE TWO BRIDGES THAT ARE CLOSED ON RT.309 EAST OF RT. 100. EITHER INSTALL TEMPORARY TRAFFIC SIGNALS OR PUT UP STOP SIGNS AT EACH END AND TREAT IT AS A ONE LANE BRIDGE.

LARRY SHAW, OREFIELD

----------------------------------

We are some of those frustrated locals living with the southbound 309 lane closure. For those of us living on Hunsicker Road which is off Route 309 between Route 100 and Bake Oven Road it is a real headache.

Hunsicker Road is a very short road and where it ends, it meets with Central Road, which is unpaved. If PennDot had planned a little better, they would have fixed the Werley's Corner bridge, before beginning the Jordan Creek bridge project, which would have allowed southbound 309 traffic from Route 100 to bypass the Jordan Creek bridge and it also would have allowed the local residents a short detour to turn onto Route 309.

As it is, just to get home from the strip mall around the corner, we have to travel Route 309 North to Northwest Road, onto Hunters Hill Road, then Bake Oven Road and onto Route 309 North just to access Hunsicker Road without traveling on a dirt road. We do this rather than risk an accident trying to go around the detour signs, but it sure would have been a smart idea to fix one bridge before starting another.

The other thing that might be confusing motorists is the sign at the intersection that states, "Road Closed, Local Traffic Only". We wonder if this means we can go past the road closed signs just to access Hunsicker Road? What do you think?

Readers jump in with both feet on barefoot driving

Monday's column on whether it's legal to drive barefoot (it is, anywhere in the United States) drew some interesting commentary. I like to keep the column topics light from time to time, to have a little fun with a topic, and this was one of those instances, though a legitimate case can be made that footwear (or lack thereof) can affect driving capability and thus the safety of all. So the column wasn't completely tongue-in-cheek.

Anyway, the Wilson resident who asked the question, Meg Tully, was suprised to find many anonymous comments on our Web site in response to the column suggesting that she, or at least her question was silly or even "stupid." I thought it was nothing of the kind -- as I said, there's a genuine issue here, though as it turns out, I can find no evidence that driving barefoot increase the danger factor for the practitioner or anyone else.

I advised Meg to utterly disregard any rude comments (and she noted they were removed from the site fairly quickly, which is a good thing). Anyone who reads the anonymous comments on our Web site (or elsewhere on the internet, for that matter) knows that their value much of the time is minimal, to put it more nicely than the folks who send them have the ability to do. There's a lot of debate in the news business about whether anonymous comments should be allowed at all, but that's another story for another time.

In any event, I wanted Meg and everyone to know that many people, particularly barefooters, appreciated that the issue was discussed, and that it answered a question they contend is widely misunderstood -- that is, many people assume that driving barefoot IS illegal.

Thanks again for the excellent question, Meg!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan,

A post on the Society for Barefoot Living blog turned me on to your barefoot driving essay. Thank you for a well-written (I'm an editor), thoughtful (I'm smart) article. I found your blog and I will read on.

I'm a 77-year-old barefoot driver in Pattaya, Thailand.

Jim Shea

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Hartzell, I just read your article "The skinny on barefoot driving." It is one of the best, most accurate, and most complete articles I've ever seen related to the "barefoot driving is illegal," myth as well as your positive references to a barefoot lifestyle in general.

A link to the article was posted on our private email mailing list for the Society for Barefoot Living <www.barefooters.org> which has over 1,400 members. The barefoot driving myth is one that we have to deal with all the time from the general public. Another popular myth is that health departments ban barefoot customers from entering stores or restaurants. Not true at all, although many people continue to believe it.

Quick note to thank you on a really great and well researched article on barefoot driving. Well done! Debunking barefoot myths is rare these days - although I have not been "busted" for barefoot driving, I have been asked to leave several stores - usually they cite a Health code violation - another myth...

Thank you very much for that really nice article on barefoot driving. I have been driving barefoot since I first could, and I will be turning 55 soon. It is good to see some unbiased, factual reporting once in a while. Maybe you could do an article on barefoot living in general. There are many of us that only wear shoes when we have to, due to employment and social considerations. I only wear shoes to work, church, and cub scouts (I am a leader and want to put forth the correct uniform example), I am barefoot everywhere else, even in the winter. I am also an avid barefoot runner and hiker.

Jennifer Lopez, where are you?

I mentioned superstar Jennifer Lopez in today's column, and expected her to show up here at the office, or at least call to thank me for the publicity, which I'm sure she desperately needs. Alas, no J-Lo. She's probably having an extra-busy day.

I did get a few interesting email comments regarding today's topic: The fact that is IS legal to drive barefoot, in Pennsylvania and, as far as I can determine, anywhere in the United States.

Steve Pohowsky, a PennDOT engineer and safety expert, had told me it was legal to drive barefoot, but that he recommended wearing shoes at all times. At the time I neglected to ask why, but later he filled me in, saying he worried that drivers might get stones or even slivers of wood or glass on their feet, causing pain when they hit the brake pedal, which might contribute to a mishap. Being a self-described tenderfoot himself, Pohowsky feels this might be a problem for many motorists, so why take chances?

On the other hand, Pohowski admitted that driving with stiletto heels might be even more dangerous!

Also, I got the following from Walt Rodgers of Bethlehem Township regarding the column photo:

Warrior,

I see in your demo photo that you have a toe ring. Do you have others with gems? Some that match your pinky ring? If you know the day of the next photo soot, may I suggest a darker nail polish? What you used here is so feminine!

UNTIL NEXT TIME, WALT

Haw haw, Walter! That's funnier than the Warrior's low-torque jest at the start of the column! Here's the thing: You're just jealous cause YOU don't have attractive feet like that, with cool nail polish and tasty toe ring!

A pine tree -- barren, but maybe dangerous?

Who do you call to report a pine tree hanging from bridge? On Route 22 east, as you approach the Turnpike bridge east of the on-ramp from Tilghman Street, a Christmas tree has been lodged between the clearance sign and the bridge abutment since winter, probably before the holiday. Shouldn't it be removed so it doesn't fall onto a passing car and possibly cause an accident?

--Gary Wertman, Upper Macungie Township

I called Turnpike spokesman Carl DeFebo in Harrisburg, Gary, and he agreed to contact the appropriate maintenance people for our region to determine if they consider the poor, dead Christmas tree a safety threat worth addressing. I agree with your surmise that a passing truck must have been stacked a bit too high with holiday delight, and lost one or more of them by striking the parapet. This particular evergreen got wedged on the ledge.

DeFebo said it likely will depend on how difficult it is for someone to get up there on the bridge and reach the tree without risking their own safety unduly, or whether a lane of Route 22 would have to be restricted to remove the object. I would imagine that kind of traffic restriction would give anyone pause.

Deadline is tomorrow for comments on Easton-P'burg toll bridge repairs

One day remains for motorists, area residents, business owners and other concerned parties to submit comments on concept plan materials for a multi-faceted rehabilitation project that will entail lane closures and travel delays in the vicinity of the Easton-Phillipsburg (Route 22) Toll Bridge during 2013.

The Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission today reminded interested parties that tomorrow -- Thursday, September 15 -- is the last day the agency will accept comments about the project before planning work shifts into the final design phase.

“This is going to be a very challenging undertaking from a traffic management perspective so it’s crucial that people relay whatever comments and concerns they may have at this critical juncture in the project planning process,” said Frank G. McCartney, the agency’s executive director. “We hope people will take the time to examine the materials on the project webpage and share their thoughts with us before the comment period expires tomorrow night.”

The link to the project’s concept plan materials may be found at the following Web page address: www.drjtbc.org/tollbridgerehab. People who wish to submit comments may use the “Contact Us” link at the top of the webpage.

The webpage was launched last month as part of a public-involvement effort the Commission is conducting to raise awareness of the impending project and its anticipated traffic impacts. The outreach effort included two open houses held on August 30, one in Easton and one in Phillipsburg, to gather public reaction on project concept plans. The open house display materials subsequently were uploaded to the project webpage, giving the public additional time to view the concept plans and relay comments.

The Web-based materials enable motorists, area residents and business owners to examine why the Commission must undertake the project as well as assess project work elements, anticipated scheduling and proposed construction stages.

Primary elements of the rehabilitation project are anticipated to include repairing the deck; blast cleaning and painting the truss; installing a bridge drainage system; performing various steel, concrete and masonry repair work; reconstructing and repaving the bridge’s approach roadways, and upgrading the toll plaza.

Work is anticipated throughout 2013, the bridge's bridge’s 75th anniversary year, though officials say lane restrictions should be limited to an eight-month period in 2013.

For information, see the Web site or call Commission spokesman Joe Donnelly, 215-862-7693.

Bethlehem: New Second Street Ramp is open

The brand-new Second Street Ramp of Bethlehem's Hill-to-Hill Bridge opened for traffic today, according to PennDOT.

Good news, but it doesn't mean the end of the construction work that's plagued motorists on the city's South Side. The old ramp is being removed, and work continues on northbound Route 378 and on the north side of W. Third Street between Cherokee and New streets, with lane restrictions remaining.

According to current plans, a good deal of finishing work will be required, taking the project into spring of next year. Still, the opening of the new ramp represents progress. South Side business district traffic has been disrupted for the past two years.

Jeff Donavan of Forks Township lets off a little steam about the way folks drive out there:

Mr. Road Warrior,

I have several questions for you. The major question is, did the state of Pennsylvania change the traffic laws in the last 40-odd years? I hate to drive anymore. I almost get run down several times a day for following the traffic laws as I was taught.

A stop sign still means stop -- or go thru if you want to. Red lights mean go thru if you want to. You can drive down any lane of the road, or between lanes, wherever you want, even if it's the middle of the road, making left turns from the right lane and right turns from the left lane. You can pull out in front of people to see if their brakes work.

If these are the correct ways to drive, then why do I 'get the bird' when I observe the rules, which is the way I was taught decades ago? I also thought it was a privilege to drive in this commonwealth, not a right. Or did the folks who drive these get their licenses from a cereal box?

Need I even mention driving while texting or blabbing on a cell phone?

LANTA's new route-guide booklet comes at a high cost

The Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority initiated its much-ballyhooed system of new routes on Aug. 29, unfortunately on the tail end of a rain-drenched weekend (to be followed, to everyone's surprise, by this week's continuing deluge from what's left of Tropical Storm Lee).

OK, nobody can predict the weather. And some initial confusion over the new routes in light of the public-bus agency's first comprehensive route restructuring in 25 years, should be expected. We'll see in the next few weeks how customers and the authority adapt.

Meanwhile, a small but quirky aspect of the new system came to my attention: LANTA helpfully stocked its buses with "LANtaBus Route Guide" books to help riders adapt to the sweeping new changes. It's pretty comprehensive, with all the routes mapped out and details specified.

Here's the thing: The booklet cover is posted with a price of $5.00. The rider who pointed this out asked his driver about the supposed charge, and the driver, to his credit in my view, told him to keep the book, gratis.

But why the ostensible charge? Are some riders forking over a five-spot for the booklet? Was this particular driver going the extra mile in customer service, or is the charge simply bogus? A misprint, perhaps?

I haven't contacted the LANTA folks yet for an answer to this minor riddle, but I'll let you know.

Turnpike traffic jam? There's an app for that

"Motorists on the Pennsylvania Turnpike can now be forewarned about problems that could impact their travels, thanks to an innovative smartphone application unveiled today. The Turnpike Commission launched a new iPhone and Droid application that reads audio alerts to travelers when there's a closure or delay in their way.

" 'One of our biggest communications challenges has been to inform customers about incidents before they enter the system, and especially getting word to anyone who's already on the road. Today, smartphone technology has evolved that enables us to answer that longtime challenge,' said Turnpike Chief Operating Officer Craig R. Shuey. 'Whether customers then decide to reroute, stop for a cup of coffee at the next travel plaza or stay the course, the choice is theirs. It's like having a crystal ball that allows smartphone users see what's ahead on the Turnpike.'

"TRIP Talk senses your position and direction on the Turnpike and 'talks' to you when it detects trouble spots nearby. Unlike some other travel-alert tools, TRIP Talk is hands-free and eyes-free. Turn it on before you depart, and it does the rest, providing up-to-the minute information about accidents, construction or bad weather for the sections of Turnpike you're approaching.

Morning Call Reporter and Columnist Dan Hartzell is The Road Warrior, defending the drivers of the Lehigh Valley and the roads on which they drive. E-mail questions about transportation in the Lehigh Valley and beyond to hartzell@mcall.com.